Most Democrats think "Medicare For All" means they can still keep their plans

It's 2%. Here in a land of decades-old nationalised health, it's 2%.

 

According to Bernie's Medicare for all bill, it will ban private insurance that duplicates the benefits of the Medicare for all so the democrats are very wrong about his bill. This effectively forces private insurance to only be something you get an addition to your public insurance rather than a replacement for public insurance.

I don't actually see any reason to ban private insurance since very few people will pay the taxes for their Medicare and also pay for private insurance for the exact same coverage. Its like buying two insurance plans for the same thing. Someone who wants something better than their Medicare for all will probably opt for an extension private plan rather than a replacement private plan to not waste money.

I'm not a supporter of Medicare for all and instead believe that we should replace Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's benefits with a public health insurance option and give people subsidies enough money to cover public insurance but can also use it for private insurance.

 

UK?

 

Except UHC would be if all the houses in a city got together and told two utility companies, “compete for our business and we will award you 100% of the power we use” so the new electric bill dropped by 30% for each property. They did the same with the equipment installer who agreed them a 10% price cut for the thousands of new customers that were guaranteed. Their new price was the same as their old price but families that previously had no power now did.

 

Again, insurance companies pay more out in claims than they take in premiumsGovernment

Because of their investment income, insurance companies can actually pay more claims than what they take in with premiums. This is very efficient. I worked for an insurance company several years ago this handled medical billing.

Government cannot (should not) do that. It has no investments to rely on.

 

Are you tying health insurance and life insurance together?

 

And how would private plans compete with free?

 

No. I worked for many years in medical billing and insurance. I’m out of that now. I’ve never worked in life insurance. I know nothing about that.

 

So you are trying to tell me Health insurance companies are paying with interest income from profits they never made?
I'm sorry, but I call BS.

 

And more people means more taxes. Math.

 

^^^^ Now that is some fine thinking. It will make the market better, more competitive, and improve it for all of those on public assistance.

 

Of course single payer can never be cheaper for people who currently pay for their own health insurance.

Is that hard to figure out?

 

SS is fine. Payments will only be cut by 25%.

 

What do you think socialized medicine is exactly.

 

Same reason I didn't dump my private plan - it's superior in every respect to that government-run turd.

 

IF you ever see that money.

And what a wonderful return we're getting on our money. If the government was my personal retirement manager I would have fired its ass years ago.

 

I just find it amazing the depths they will go to in order to pretend everything is fine.

They accuse me of cognitive dissonance too. So funny.

They also seem to think going to single payer somehow reduces medical costs.

I mean we all know that when the government takes over something the private sector does, prices go down. Oh man made myself laugh.

 

My view is similar to Biden's and it's simple.
You allow private people and private business to buy Medicare.

 

No, it's clearly incorrect because all the facts contradict it!! Our private insurance system is THE MOST EXPENSIVE in the world, and our outcomes are in most cases INFERIOR.

 

Now you're misrepresenting what I said. I never said "this is fine" nor suggested it. I refuted your claim that SS was going to run out of funds.

 

So you cancel all private insurance, hand it to the government, and give everyone the option of government run healthcare or no healthcare?

 

I see.

Please explain how government run healthcare will be less expensive.

 

It is running out of funds. That's why the payments are going to be cut.

 

"Running out of funds" means ending up without funds because they've run out. I proved that claim is false. Careful, accurate wording matters.

 

You're moving the goal posts again. YOU SAID "single payer can never be cheaper..."

Now you want specifics about how the current proposal will be less expensive". And we can't know that until it's in place. But we can discuss how government-run healthcare can be less expensive. But that's not what you asked.